Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poornima Vijayashanker


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Yellow Dingo &#160; (talk)  22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Poornima Vijayashanker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Looks like an advertisement of the person with lots of PR done online, no physical presence and not even done any notable work or received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems only a speaker who has done lots of PR. Vinay089 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. PR job or no, she has significant coverage in the New York Times as well as what looks like other reliable sources. That's enough for WP:GNG, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I started that article. Vijayashanker is notable for her advocacy for women in engineering. She has been a successful woman in a male-dominated profession and wrote much of the code for Mint. She has several non-trivial articles written about her in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, there are couple other sources about her that I didn't add to the article yet (which is totally not a PR job... I just thought she seemed like a cool person to write about). Here is a Huffington Post piece and and a Silicon Republic article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm rather puzzled by the nomination because there are plenty of sources (too many?) and some seem to me to be significant in terms of our notability criteria. However, perhaps the nominator has something else in mind. It reads a bit like a speedy deletion rationale but a speedy would certainly fail. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The weight of reliable sources clearly establishes notability, and establishes that what the nominator assumes to be the case is not true. I am not able to verify the offline sources to see if they are more than a mention, but most of the online sources definitely qualify as more than a brief mention.--greenrd (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.